-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.2k
Fixes for issue 901 continued #910
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
| if (input.value !== undefined && input.value !== witnessValue) throw new Error('Input didn\'t match witnessValue') | ||
| typeforce(types.Satoshi, witnessValue) | ||
| input.value = witnessValue | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this side steps the call to fixMultisigOrder, which would remove any signatures from the array which aren't valid?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
|
@dcousens ah, I see the confusion.. I just found the exact same issue as mine recently: #901 (comment) which is indeed related to the input.value not being present, but the fixMsOrder demonstrates how it can be a problem if you leave it until So my solution was #909, which means that signatures fail and aren't extracted IF the transaction, which was passed to TransactionBuilder.fromTransaction as inputs which have the input.value for segwit outputs. Ping @dakk since we are having identical issues. |
afk11
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Concept ACK. Not a full fix for #909 but restores fields which may otherwise have been missing
|
As discussed on Slack, we'll need to incorporate the second half of the complete fix for this problem in #909 |
|
I confirm it works now with my test case, excellent work |
@afk11 maybe this is what you intended in #909 ?
f4a83f8 is a follow up to #907 which was having issues locally